MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147758661 · doi:10.1139/g01-150

A compilation of soybean ESTs: generation and analysis

2002· article· en· W2147758661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Randy C. Shoemaker, Paul Keim, Lila O. Vodkin, Ernest Retzel, Sandra W. Clifton, R Waterston, David A. Smoller, Virginia H. Coryell, Anupama Khanna, John E. Erpelding, Xiaowu Gai, Volker Brendel, Christina Raph-Schmidt, Elizabeth Shoop, C J Vielweber, Matt Schmatz, Deana Pape, Yvette Bowers, Brenda Theising, John C. Martin, Michael Dante, Todd Wylie, Cheryl L. Granger

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContigExpressed sequence tagBiologyGenomeGeneticsGenecDNA libraryDNA sequencingComputational biologyGenomicsGene predictionWhole genome sequencingComplementary DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole-genome sequencing is fundamental to understanding the genetic composition of an organism. Given the size and complexity of the soybean genome, an alternative approach is targeted random-gene sequencing, which provides an immediate and productive method of gene discovery. In this study, more than 120000 soybean expressed sequence tags (ESTs) generated from more than 50 cDNA libraries were evaluated. These ESTs coalesced into 16928 contigs and 17336 singletons. On average, each contig was composed of 6 ESTs and spanned 788 bases. The average sequence length submitted to dbEST was 414 bases. Using only those libraries generating more than 800 ESTs each and only those contigs with 10 or more ESTs each, correlated patterns of gene expression among libraries and genes were discerned. Two-dimensional qualitative representations of contig and library similarities were generated based on expression profiles. Genes with similar expression patterns and, potentially, similar functions were identified. These studies provide a rich source of publicly available gene sequences as well as valuable insight into the structure, function, and evolution of a model crop legume genome.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations140
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207